Research Studies in Music Education

This paper argues for a more profound contextual analysis of the music studied. It is argued that the impact of some newer ideas from the second half of the 20^th century, often labelled post-modern, have not been sufficiently assimilated in music education philosophy. What is in reality a call for greater depth in contextual analysis has too often been trivialised into a superficial notion of a social context incorrectly focussed more on the contemporary than the historical. The shift to social constructivism should not demolish the concept of cultural truth or the historical usefulness of the idea of immanence or metaphysical presence, as some commentators would argue. Instead, the new heuristic methodologies, particularly those of such writers as Jacques Derrida, Paul-Michel Foucault and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, provide powerful tools for developing a truer understanding of the importance of the situatedness of all music. How this might be exposed is demonstrated from the traditions of western culture. The way forward for a philosophy of music education is to accept the blurring of genres (or disciplines) over the last few decades, and go further than simply accentuating the social situatedness of today's student. Indeed the idea of an education should enable the student to rise above her own social situation. Music works as a cultural system in itself, but one which refers to and reflects the larger culture in which it was situated and which gave it form and meaning within its own systems of thought and action. Musical understanding is explained as being derived from a study of performance practice within these important contextual factors.

In this philosophical essay, the purposes and limits of philosophy are clarified, and two metaphors for the philosopher's work in music education—the architect and building inspector—are described. The strengths and limitations of each metaphor are briefly sketched. A dialectical approach to negotiating these metaphors is also suggested. Seeing that the philosopher serves multiple and sometimes conflicting roles in music education, music educators need to cultivate a variety of philosophical perspectives and ensure an open forum for dialogue about the aims, purposes, and approaches of music education.

This discussion offers a broad perspective on past and present philosophising about music and music education. In building this discussion, I employ two orienting concepts: modernity and postmodernity. My aim is to unpack some relationships between these concepts and philosophies of music and music education. (Note: I shall follow many other writers in making a distinction, below, between postmodernity as an era and `postmodern-ism' as a movement).

This paper centres on Harry Broudy, the scholar who was the first to argue, consistently and extensively, for aesthetics as a foundation for music education in American public schools. Broudy, considered by many as the major philosopher of education in the second part of the 20th century, was not a musician or music educator. His framing of the discipline of school music as aesthetic education evolved out of his philosophy of general education for citizenship, grounded within an ethical framework. In this paper, I examine Broudy's philosophy of music education within the larger context of his thinking, and its impact on music educators in the USA.

This paper considers views of music education from beyond the mainstream of academic discussion, focusing on three areas: 1) recent media discussion of the neurological effects of music learning; 2) surveys of professional reflections on the role and identity of the music teacher; and 3) pupils' perspectives on the music curriculum, including their suggestions for its modification. It is concluded that these diverse sources, often neglected in research reviews, offer a diversity of purposes and values for music education, whilst sharing a commitment to its place in the lives of young people. Further research is called for, which recognises the validity of these multiple perspectives, and draws attention to the wealth of experience and expertise to be found in everyday teaching and learning in music.

My esteemed late colleague Harry S. Broudy often expressed curiosity about invitations he received to address subjects and topics about which he had little specialized knowledge. But the reason was quite apparent; as a philosopher he had the skill to detect issues that helped others to think more wisely about their ramifications. I occasionally find myself in a similar position. Although I have only general knowledge about music and do not follow developments in the field of music education as closely as in my own area of special interest, I often receive invitations from music educators to join in their deliberations. It is not, I think, because of any special knack for detecting and clarifying issues but rather because of my philosophy of aesthetic education that might be of some interest to music educators. The following then are a few notes about my thinking insofar as it centres on the arts and not broader conceptions of aesthetic education.

Drawing on an interview in which a self-report of a rehearsal and a performance is given, the current paper explores the elements that constitute a performance and assesses what makes it meaningful to the performer and the audience. Both psychological and philosophical approaches are taken so that concepts are examined as fully as possible. It is argued that the performer does not simply construct an interpretation from a formal musical knowledge base and the refinement of motor skills. Rather, the rehearsal period is shaped out of expressive intentions that emerge primarily from metaphorical projections linking physical experience and meaning production. Thus, a rational and fundamental connection is made so that abstract musical material is given a grounded meaning based in bodily experience. The importance of the body in the construction of mental states is explored, highlighting the interface between mind and body as it reflects and creates simultaneously who we are moment by moment. After the rehearsal process, the performance situation is explored. Here, it is noted that whilst there is a high degree of automaticity in the mechanical production of the music, in the interaction with the audience, the performer can achieve a state of unselfconsciousness and be at the peak of her/his abilities: a genuine form of spontaneous creativity. Here, again, it is the stock of human traits and experiences grounded in corporeality that are named as the source of creativity. For the audience, it is explained that they draw on metaphorical transference so that the music they experience is apprehended and related to movement and experiences in the body. Thus, it is argued that the musical meaning generated by both performer and audience is highly individualised, and so multiple. Finally, the concept of an authentic performance is explored, and it is concluded that historical and social factors which interplay in the meaning production process should be regarded as means to stimulate imagination, and so creativity. The implications for music education are obvious: we need to aim for a bodily-based theory and practice to develop fully the potential of our students.